get_team_match_board

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and specifies the data returned (games and scores), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, authentication needs, or whether any filtering is possible. This is adequate but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description adequately states what is returned (games and scores). It does not explain the output format, but given the lack of an output schema, this is a minor omission. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters (board and matchId) with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get games and scores for a board in a Chess.com Daily team match.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('games and scores for a board'), and scopes it to 'Daily team match,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_live_team_match_board for live matches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for daily team matches ('Daily team match'), which provides clear context for when to use it versus the live match variant. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives like get_live_team_match_board, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.